« The Lesson of Iraq | Main | Call Jack Bauer »

Good Advice

14 Apr 2008 01:42 pm

Dan Froomkin observes that Bernard Lewis "hinted in an Aug. 8, 2006, Wall Street Journal op-ed that Ahmadinejad might be planning a nuclear attack on Israel just two weeks later, on the date in the Islamic calendar when the Prophet Muhammad made his mystical journey to Jerusalem." But so what? There's a lot of garbage printed in the WSJ opinion pages.

Well, it just so happens that Vice President Dick Cheney went on Hugh Hewitt's radio show last week and explained that this kind of forecasting is guiding his approach to Iran policy:

I mean, if I look at what [Ahmadenijad's] beliefs supposedly are, the allegation that the return of the 12th Imam is something to be much desired, and that the best contribution that a man can make is to die a martyr facilitating that return, and all that goes with it, I always think of Bernard Lewis, who has said that mutual assured destruction during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviets meant peace and stability and deterrence. But mutual assured destruction in the hands of Ahmadinejad may just be an incentive.

Matt Duss notes that there are some other respects in which Lewis' foreign policy advice seems to have gone awry, but at a minimum one would think that this particular prediction would have caused some to doubt the wisdom of relying on his forecasting of the role Shi'a mysticism plays in Iranian foreign policy. The specifics of Lewis aside, I always find it odd that hawks prefer to rely on this kind of a priori analysis of likely Iranian behavior when the regime in question came into being over two decades ago and has never previously shown any proclivity for deliberately seeking its own destruction.

Share This

Comments (32)

How do we break the cycle of media-republicans-media echo chamber bullshit?

I have no idea. Glenn Greenwald is on the right track, but outside of government regulation and a return to the Fairness Doctrine, I don't know how to dismantle the right wing bullshit machine.

"I always find it odd that hawks prefer to rely on this kind of a priori analysis of likely Iranian behavior when the regime in question came into being over two decades ago and has never previously shown any proclivity for deliberately seeking its own destruction."

One could argue that invading the embassy of a superpower and holding its personnel hostage, or having your proxies blow up hundreds of U.S. Marines in Lebanon, or threatening that superpower's ships in the Persian Gulf are examples of courting destruction.

but at a minimum one would think that this particular prediction would have caused some to doubt the wisdom of relying on his forecasting of the role Shi'a mysticism plays in Iranian foreign policy.

This is the party that reveres Reagan, a man who used an astrologer to schedule meetings. This kind of use of the mystic is a Red thing; you wouldn't understand.

I find it ironic that an administration that seemingly has an open-door policy for apocalyptic, End-timer Christian fundamentalists working for “Armageddon Now!”, would be worried about Shia fanatics trying to bring about the same kind of thing.
Just another example of fanatics reinforcing each others narrative, I guess.

It's weird how these people can simultaneously insist that Iran is a tyrannical dictatorship which imposes the will of a few clerics in the Guardian Council on a recalcitrant populous and that Ahmadinejad is a powerful figure who has the authority to launch a nuclear attack based on his own religious views.

Very good point Julian. It's also weird how we prop up an Iraqi government made up of Iranian supported extremist exile groups while declaring that Iran is supposedly attacking this same government

One could argue that invading the embassy of a superpower and holding its personnel hostage, or having your proxies blow up hundreds of U.S. Marines in Lebanon, or threatening that superpower's ships in the Persian Gulf are examples of courting destruction.

And what disaster transpired as a result of the US not taking military action in those instances?

One could also argue that having the restraint to not be starting wars at the slightest provocation is a mature and successful component of foreign policy. Or used to be, anyway.

The Iranians would bomb Israel... riiiiight.

Setting aside the obvious (Israel would bomb Iran back to the 7th century) here are a few reasons why a nuclear attack on Israel reeks of uninformed propaganda:

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatolloh Khamenei issued a Fatwa against the construction/use of atomic weapons.

The 3rd most holy site in Islam is located in Jerusalem (the Al Aqsa mosque).

15% of Israel's population is muslim. Muslims in Israel, as well as Shiite groups in Lebanon would certainly be impacted.

Millenarianist cults tend to believe in fate, i.e., interfering with god's divine plan is improper.

One could argue that overthrowing the democratic government of a country in 1953 and installing and propping up a brutal dictator, interposing your military in another country’s civil war while bombing and shelling it’s citizens, shooting down airliners full of civilians, and endlessly threatening a country with war and “regime change” are examples of courting retaliation.

So, Cheney is a dunce who thinks Ahmadinejad really runs Iran.

And out of him and Bush, he's supposed to be the smart one.

One could argue that overthrowing the democratic government of a country in 1953 and installing and propping up a brutal dictator, interposing your military in another country’s civil war while bombing and shelling it’s citizens, shooting down airliners full of civilians, and endlessly threatening a country with war and “regime change” are examples of courting retaliation.

The Iranians would bomb Israel... riiiiight.

Setting aside the obvious (Israel would bomb Iran back to the 7th century) here are a few reasons why a nuclear attack on Israel reeks of uninformed propaganda:

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatolloh Khamenei issued a Fatwa against the construction/use of atomic weapons.

The 3rd most holy site in Islam is located in Jerusalem (the Al Aqsa mosque).

15% of Israel's population is muslim. Muslims in Israel, as well as Shiite groups in Lebanon would certainly be impacted.

Millenarianist cults tend to believe in fate, i.e., interfering with god's divine plan is improper.

Cheney had me at, "I mean, if I look at what his beliefs supposedly are..."

St. Ronnie took the advice of astrologers...

Cheney & Co.'s use of Bernard Lewis as their guide to the Muslim Mind is reminiscent of Third Reich officials who used 19th century "phrenologist" studies of Jewish craniums to predict and determine Jewish perfidies and malignancies.

or having your proxies blow up hundreds of U.S. Marines in Lebanon

It's worth noting that we still don't really know who was responsible for the 1983 Beirut bombings. "Everyone knows" that Iranian proxies were behind the attacks in the same way that "everyone knew" that Iraq had WMD.

In fact, Caspar Weinberger was able to dissuade President Reagan from punishing Iran for the attacks because we didn't know that Iran's proxies were responsible. Weinberger maintains, quite correctly, that we remain uncertain about responsibility for the attacks to this day.

The only really damning piece of evidence linking Iran to the attack is an alleged NSA intercept that has never been made public. Its existence was first disclosed in March 2003; I'm sure the timing is a coincidence.

Even if one were to concede that Shi'i groups were responsible for the attacks, it's not clear that Iran had anything to do with them. There were all sorts of nascent Shi'i guerrilla groups running around Lebanon in 1982-1983; their relationships with Iran were complex and varied widely. "Hizbullah" wouldn't exist as a coherent entity for a while yet.

But one shouldn't even be too sure that Shi'i groups were responsible for the attacks. One of the early CIA investigations into the bombings suggested involvement by Palestinian groups (remember, this was only a few months after the Sabra and Shatila massacre) and disaffected Maronites. One of the first people to claim responsibility for the Marine barracks bombing was Walid Jumblatt,

Why would Walid Jumblatt (one of Washington's closest allies in Lebanon today) claim responsibility for the barracks bombing? Well, because the U.S. had been shelling his Druze villages in the Chouf. The U.S. had also been attacking Shi'i positions, too: this is the alleged motive for Shi'i involvement in the Beirut bombings.

Regardless of who actually carried out the Beirut bombings, this gets to the heart of the reason that they happened at all: the U.S. Marines were in Lebanon to intervene on Gemayel's side of the Lebanese Civil War. We had started a war with Gemayel's Lebanese enemies. And, when you start a war, the other side usually shoots back.

The 1983 Beirut bombings would be a terrible reason to go to war with Iran, but they're a good reason to get out of the civil war in Iraq.

Dick Cheney said ...

"that the return of the 12th Imam is something to be much desired, and that the best contribution that a man can make is to die a martyr facilitating that return, and all that goes with it, ..."

Someone should ask him his opinion of the right-wing Chrisian wingnuts like John Hagee who want a Middle East War so Christ can return. BTW, how long before some of the Christian nuts realise that the quickest way to get such a war started it to encourage some jihadists to do it ....?

Maybe Cheney should start taking advice from Miss Cleo at the Psychic Friends Network - or are did they all get busted for fraud?
No matter, I'm getting the MegaMillions number - and buying some Halliburton stock - bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!

If there actually were a nuclear war between Iran and Israel, hundreds of people would die right here in America - from gunfights at gas stations over the last tankfuls of $20 per gallon gasoline.

If there actually were a nuclear war between Iran and Israel, hundreds of people would die right here in America - from gunfights at gas stations over the last tankfuls of $20 per gallon gasoline.

I wonder if there are people in Iran who make a living going on tv and writing op-eds predicting when Bush is going to start bombing Iran based on Christian apocalyptic mysticism and Bush's faith-based governing?

"One could argue that invading the embassy of a superpower and holding its personnel hostage, or having your proxies blow up hundreds of U.S. Marines in Lebanon, or threatening that superpower's ships in the Persian Gulf are examples of courting destruction." - Fred

Funny about those dead Americans in the Lebanese Embassy attacks, and the attacks on the marines. According to the house report on the Iran-Contra affair, the proxy organization that facilitated Hezbollah’s attack was … the Iraqi Da’wa party. Headed at the moment, I believe, by the friend of all faithful warmongers, Maliki. From page 160 of the report:

“A series of bold attacks followed [the U.S. presence in Lebanon] against Americans and American interests throughout Lebanon. The U.S. Embassy in Beirut was destroyed in April 1983, killing 63, including 17 Americans. A suicide bombing on October 23, 1983, killed 241 Marines in their barracks in Beirut. This incident was followed in Dember by a series of bombing attacks against the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait. The 17 men who were apprehended in the Kuwait attack were tried and sentenced to prison. The release of these “Da’wa prisoners” (as they came to be known after a pro-Khomeini party with supporters in several countries) became a key demand of Hizbollah as attacks against U.S. targets and the taking of American hostages continued in Lebanon.”

But I forgot – Maliki is a hero! Because … because… because… when Bush declares black is white, the troops have to swerve and swear black is white. And so it goes among the Gandarene swine of the GOP, merrily charge off cliff after cliff, pulling this long suffering country with them.

But I will give this to the Bushies – they have proven that no harm or enmity is so deep that a significant part of the American republic will forget it instantly when told to do so. While short term memory loss is probably bad for the personality, it does mean that when the U.S. negotiates an end to the miserable hostility we have going with Iran, we can depend on the swine to forget. I guess the corrolary is, however, that the swine amnesia has to be lead by some greasy GOP leader – otherwise, it doesn’t take.

Matt, come on. Ahmadinejad has a big mouth for sure, but he has less influence than Nancy Pelosi in the Iranian system: all foreign, defence and nuclear policy is strictly out of his hands.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/print/20080410-10.html

April 10, 2008

Interview of the Vice President by Sean Hannity

Q If we pull out too early, what do you believe the consequences would be?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, what I remember, Sean, is Afghanistan -- I try to remind people of this -- back in the '80s, when we were actively involved in supporting the mujahideen there against the Soviets. We were successful, and then everybody who was involved in the effort walked away from Afghanistan. The result after that was the Taliban -- first you had a civil war; then the Taliban came to power; and then they brought in Osama bin Laden in '96. And then in Afghanistan, they trained 20,000 terrorists, a bunch of whom came here and killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

For us to walk away from Iraq I think would have at least that bad an effect, probably worse, because if al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of a significant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrel reserves, producing 2.5-3 million barrels of oil a day. If you take a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there's no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.

So I -- for us to suggest that somehow we can hide behind our oceans and not worry about what happens in Iraq, or in the Middle East generally, or with respect to al Qaeda is just a travesty. I can't think that any American government can do that and accept the consequences of that. I think it would be a terrible, terrible development for the nation.

Q And I believe it would create a safe haven for al Qaeda and Iran inside of Iraq. What did you make of Senator Barack Obama's comments that he would talk to Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier who's repeatedly threatened to blow up and remove Israel from the state -- from the map, the world map, and obviously is pursuing some nuclear capability?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he is, and I think the position we've taken with respect to that is that we would be prepared to talk when they stopped enriching uranium. Of course, they've never met that condition, so we haven't had talks at that level.

But Ahmadinejad is I think a very dangerous man. On the one hand, he has repeatedly stated that he wants to destroy Israel. He also has -- is a man who believes in the return of the 12th Imam; and that the highest honor that can befall a man is that he should die a martyr in facilitating the return of the 12th Imam.

It's a radical, radical point of view. Bernard Lewis once said, mutual assured destruction in the Soviet-U.S. relationship in the Cold War meant deterrence, but mutual assured destruction with Ahmadinejad is an incentive. You have to be concerned about that....

I would imagine that even Shi'a mysticism is impressed by the knowledge that any such attack on Israel would be met by a retaliatory strike from Israeli submarine-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missiles that would leave nothing left of Iran and Shi'ism.

Cheney doesn't actually believe that shit. It's just for consumption by morons like Fred, Ford and the like. Cheney is a straight up liar, like Bush, Rice, and the rest of the US government at the moment.

Jennifer, Ahmadinejad has NEVER stated that he wants to destroy Israel. Repeat: never. All that "wipe off the map" crap were deliberate mistranslations of the Persian language.

He has stated and the official policy of Iran is that the Israeli STATE needs to be removed and replaced by a Palestinian state.

Quite a different proposition. But one the Zionist freaks get highly upset over which is why we should see SLC weighing in here momentarily - since I've done a post mentioning Israel, which he has his search engine set to check for daily.

But Hannity and Cheney continue to push that crap every day - and so do the right wing trolls on this blog and every other blog.

"Funny about those dead Americans in the Lebanese Embassy attacks, and the attacks on the marines. According to the house report on the Iran-Contra affair, the proxy organization that facilitated Hezbollah’s attack was … the Iraqi Da’wa party. Headed at the moment, I believe, by the friend of all faithful warmongers, Maliki." Right.

Wasn't Da'wa also responsible for a terror attack in Kuwait that killed Americans some time ago? And wasn't a person linked to that attack discovered in Iraq's parliment? It just keeps getting better and better.

R.D. Hack has it right: Cheney just fills a bowl with pure ugly bullshit knowing that Hannity will get down on all fours in his bermuda shorts and hungrily lap it up. The only types that believe that 12th imam/caliphate crap are Heshie and the gangling douches at Littlegreenfootballs.

I looked up the history of the Dawa movement in Wikipedia.

Get this - one of its leading members was - the father-in-law of Muqtada al-Sadr! Yup - Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr was a leading, if not founding, member. The Hakims, with whom the current al-Sadr is feuding, were some of the founding members.

He later forbade his students from entering the Dawa movement, allegedly because he feared reprisals from the Saddam regime against his students. In retaliation, Dawa switched their allegiance to Abu Al-Qassim Al-Khoei - the guy who was assassinated, allegedly by al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, after the US invasion in 2003.

A twin Dawa Party was founded in Lebanon by students who had studied in Iraq.

When Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran, he believed that the state should be controlled by the clerics. The Dawa believed the state should be controlled by the ummah, the people. So the SCIRI faction broke off from the Dawa Party. The Dawa Party also had connections with some Sunnis at the time. This explains how the current al-Sadr can have some credibility in dealing with the Sunnis, at least before the recent Baghdad ethnic cleansing occurred.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the US supported Iraq more than Iran, so Dawa was considered a "terrorist group".

And check out THIS part!

"In 1983 Dawa simultaneously bombed the American and French embassies in Kuwait and several other domestic and foreign targets in Kuwait. This led to the imprisonment of the "Kuwait 17" in Kuwait, 12 of which were Iraqis in al-Dawa[10]. The bombing of the American embassy was an early instance of suicide bombing in the Middle East, along with the Hezbollah's bombings of the American Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon earlier that year. [11]

Freeing the al-Dawa prisoners in Kuwait was one of the main objectives of a string of kidnappings and bombings perpetrated by Hezbollah over the next several years. (One of the Kuwait 17, Mustafa Badreddin, is a relative and associate of Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyah.[12]) The Kuwait 17 then played a role in the Iran-Contra scandal: The principals of Iran-Contra offered to sway Kuwait to release the Kuwait 17 as one of several incentives to free American hostages in Lebanon. However, when President Reagan learned of this offer, he allegedly responded "like he had been kicked in the belly." [13] The Kuwait 17 somehow gained freedom, possibly by escaping or by a prisoner exchange with Iran, when Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait in the prelude to the Persian Gulf War.[14]

Al-Dawa has since insisted that the attacks in Kuwait were perpetrated by agents who had been "hijacked" by Iran.[15] In February 2007, journalists reported that Jamal Jaafar Muhammad, who was elected to the Iraqi parliament in 2005 as part of the SCIRI/Badr faction of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), was also sentenced to death in Kuwait for planning the al-Dawa bombings.[16] Since al-Dawa is also part of the UIA, it is therefore difficult to argue a complete break from these past acts of violence. On the other hand, Muhammad's position could indicate some distance, since he is a former al-Dawa militant who is now in the Badr Organization."

Yeah, right, he moved from Iranian-backed Dawa to Iranian-backed Badr - so he's okay now!

In other words, folks, the people who brought you the deaths of Americans in Lebanon and Kuwait are now the people that Bush says are "democracy loving, America loving" allies that we need to lose more US troops defending to make Iraq safe for American oil companies lest that evil Iranian-backed al-Sadr dude (whose father-in-law used to run this group until they got too Iranian-backed) screws us out of the oil!

Now Powell will come in here and tell you all that we have to do this because our "vital national interests in the region" require us to stomp on al-Sadr's seven-million supporters in order to support this boot licker Maliki whose orders come from Iran - when they don't come from the US oil companies...

You can't make this stuff up, folks! I keep telling you! If you can't tell when these people are lying to you by now, I don't know what to tell you!

Cheney & Co.'s use of Bernard Lewis as their guide to the Muslim Mind is reminiscent of Third Reich officials who used 19th century "phrenologist" studies of Jewish craniums to predict and determine Jewish perfidies and malignancies.

Posted by Trevor | April 14, 2008 3:21 PM


Yes, and it's funny how, just like the Nazi Germans' "scientific studies" always managed to "prove" Jewish perfidy; the "deep analysis" of the Bush/Cheney regime's favored experts always manage to finger Iran for whatever malfeasance they want to highlight at the moment. Not that the Teheran gang are clean-handed by any means (or ever have been): but when they have been officially classified as "Evil" by our Idiot-in-Chief, I guess no lunacy is considered, well, too lunatic to ascribe to them.

Brilliant way to conduct the nation's foreign policy.... NOT!

Bernard Lewis should go back to advising the Ottoman Empire on its foreign policy.

I'd really have to give credit to Iran if they nuked Israel without having access to nukes. That's some creativity right there.


Comments closed April 28, 2008.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.